Jump to content

Please stop whining


coventry
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tickets to live entertainment events (including sports, music, theater, and other events) have really gone up in the last 30-40 years, far more than the rate of inflation. It's what the market will bear (sort of like college tuition, although that's a more complex story) but that doesn't make it less sh-tty.

Is it really a "shitty" situation? Those that can afford it now can watch the show in comfort while sipping their favorite beverage rather than battling a crowd and having to watch the show pressed between people's sweaty armpits. It's expensive, but it's probably a more enjoyable experience for a lot of folks.

 

Let me clarify - its shitty to some who cant afford it, or who can afford it and feel it costs too much. While market pricing is understandable, that doesnt mean I have to like the price of things :) The upside as I have said, is greater choice and greater access (and to luxury boxes etc.), and also greater shows (those large LED displays, advanced sound systems, fire and explosions cost money), and also riches for the band who dont make any money on albums anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tickets to live entertainment events (including sports, music, theater, and other events) have really gone up in the last 30-40 years, far more than the rate of inflation. It's what the market will bear (sort of like college tuition, although that's a more complex story) but that doesn't make it less sh-tty.

Is it really a "shitty" situation? Those that can afford it now can watch the show in comfort while sipping their favorite beverage rather than battling a crowd and having to watch the show pressed between people's sweaty armpits. It's expensive, but it's probably a more enjoyable experience for a lot of folks.

 

If someone wants to watch a show in comfort, they should do it from their living room.

 

The thing is that it's crucial to have crazy, sweaty, energetic people in the front. Those folks have a responsibility to everyone else in the room which is to exchange energy with the artist all night, ideally resulting in a better and more powerful performance for all. Nothing sucks more as a performer than to think the people they are supposed to entertain are bored, but what else can they assume when looking into a crowd everyone they can easily see are sitting in comfort and not really getting into whatever it is they're doing? That's when performances get phoned in and/or cut short. Why do you think some artists will not play to 100% seated rooms and require a standing pit, at the very least?

 

I sat next to a couple who came on an ill advised date in the 7th row once, and the girl sat the whole time even during TS and SoR. It was bizarre. But it didnt bother me, and I dont think she had any kind of obligation to stand. Her boyfriend just kinda wasted a ticket :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is the last tour will Neil give us more than a cursory wave goodbye? I saw him once wave while running of the stage not facing the crowd. Traffic or one last goodbye to fans? Cmon Neil, just walk out to front stage and say goodbye with Geddy and Alex. You old poop.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is the last tour will Neil give us more than a cursory wave goodbye? I saw him once wave while running of the stage not facing the crowd. Traffic or one last goodbye to fans? Cmon Neil, just walk out to front stage and say goodbye with Geddy and Alex. You old poop.

 

Doubtful. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an old tenet, bands who always insist on GA pits up front, obviously they just want a rowdy crowd to play to and play off.

 

Rush isn't one of those bands. Their crowds are adoring regardless of whether they're sitting, standing, jumping, cheering, or crying.

 

People who are continuing to whine about how it ain't fair that good seats command higher prices, and that it'd be better for everyone and the band if that wasn't the case, are simply people who can't afford said seats. And while that sucks for them, and I empathize, I have been one of those people many times for many concerts in 40 years, there are no justifications that are going to explain it away. The truth is...if someone can afford it, they'd pay it. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tickets to live entertainment events (including sports, music, theater, and other events) have really gone up in the last 30-40 years, far more than the rate of inflation. It's what the market will bear (sort of like college tuition, although that's a more complex story) but that doesn't make it less sh-tty.

Is it really a "shitty" situation? Those that can afford it now can watch the show in comfort while sipping their favorite beverage rather than battling a crowd and having to watch the show pressed between people's sweaty armpits. It's expensive, but it's probably a more enjoyable experience for a lot of folks.

 

If someone wants to watch a show in comfort, they should do it from their living room.

 

The thing is that it's crucial to have crazy, sweaty, energetic people in the front. Those folks have a responsibility to everyone else in the room which is to exchange energy with the artist all night, ideally resulting in a better and more powerful performance for all. Nothing sucks more as a performer than to think the people they are supposed to entertain are bored, but what else can they assume when looking into a crowd everyone they can easily see are sitting in comfort and not really getting into whatever it is they're doing? That's when performances get phoned in and/or cut short. Why do you think some artists will not play to 100% seated rooms and require a standing pit, at the very least?

 

That's horseshit. Just because somebody pays a premium to be up front, doesn't mean they're going to sit on their ass during the show. They have zero responsibility to anybody at the show. I dunno when the last Rush show you attended had a bunch of 'rich boring people' up front doing nothing, but I never have even once witnessed that, and I've been to a lot of Rush gigs. It's GOOD that Rush doesn't do a GA pit. GA pits suck balls. There is no reason at all to assume going to a concert must mean you must be uncomfortable to have a good time.

 

LOL, some of you guys are a little regressive when it comes to concerts. You're not 16 anymore. Deal with it.

 

I agree with both points here, although with less passionate language. Of course Rush has the right to set market prices, but may have gone a little far with magnitude comments, possibly to drive up prices. In the NYC metro area, the 2 sellouts have been the quickest in 20 years. I have been lucky to get tix to each for less than full market value, but still very expensive. Its been a bummer to those without tix that they have not released more side and the almost rear stage seats like they used to in the easy sellout days of 1980 - 1997 here.

 

But, it was a huuuuuge bummer at the CA tour, sitting mid teens center, me and Chad Smith so much wanted the crowd to rock, I swear he was in the row ahead of me.

 

Whether it was the CA mega 80s setlist,or industry types with freebies leaving early, that was by far the quietest Rush crowd and most empty seats I recall in 20 years. And yes, my understanding is Chad recently bought a vaca home not far from here. I thought no way that was him until I read that, he is an LA guy after all.

 

Anyway, huge bummer with such a mellow crowd, although its their right to drive prices up so high the industry gets some freebies that would be thrown out if not used.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tickets to live entertainment events (including sports, music, theater, and other events) have really gone up in the last 30-40 years, far more than the rate of inflation. It's what the market will bear (sort of like college tuition, although that's a more complex story) but that doesn't make it less sh-tty.

Is it really a "shitty" situation? Those that can afford it now can watch the show in comfort while sipping their favorite beverage rather than battling a crowd and having to watch the show pressed between people's sweaty armpits. It's expensive, but it's probably a more enjoyable experience for a lot of folks.

 

If someone wants to watch a show in comfort, they should do it from their living room.

 

The thing is that it's crucial to have crazy, sweaty, energetic people in the front. Those folks have a responsibility to everyone else in the room which is to exchange energy with the artist all night, ideally resulting in a better and more powerful performance for all. Nothing sucks more as a performer than to think the people they are supposed to entertain are bored, but what else can they assume when looking into a crowd everyone they can easily see are sitting in comfort and not really getting into whatever it is they're doing? That's when performances get phoned in and/or cut short. Why do you think some artists will not play to 100% seated rooms and require a standing pit, at the very least?

 

That's horseshit. Just because somebody pays a premium to be up front, doesn't mean they're going to sit on their ass during the show. They have zero responsibility to anybody at the show. I dunno when the last Rush show you attended had a bunch of 'rich boring people' up front doing nothing, but I never have even once witnessed that, and I've been to a lot of Rush gigs. It's GOOD that Rush doesn't do a GA pit. GA pits suck balls. There is no reason at all to assume going to a concert must mean you must be uncomfortable to have a good time.

 

LOL, some of you guys are a little regressive when it comes to concerts. You're not 16 anymore. Deal with it.

 

I agree with both points here, although with less passionate language. Of course Rush has the right to set market prices, but may have gone a little far with magnitude comments, possibly to drive up prices. In the NYC metro area, the 2 sellouts have been the quickest in 20 years. I have been lucky to get tix to each for less than full market value, but still very expensive. Its been a bummer to those without tix that they have not released more side and the almost rear stage seats like they used to in the easy sellout days of 1980 - 1997 here.

 

But, it was a huuuuuge bummer at the CA tour, sitting mid teens center, me and Chad Smith so much wanted the crowd to rock, I swear he was in the row ahead of me.

 

Whether it was the CA mega 80s setlist,or industry types with freebies leaving early, that was by far the quietest Rush crowd and most empty seats I recall in 20 years. And yes, my understanding is Chad recently bought a vaca home not far from here. I thought no way that was him until I read that, he is an LA guy after all.

 

Anyway, huge bummer with such a mellow crowd, although its their right to drive prices up so high the industry gets some freebies that would be thrown out if not used.

 

I don't think anyone's obligated to do shit at a show, yeah, but I also think every show is way better if there's energy coming from the crowd and the band.

 

I like arena shows but I prefer smaller, general admission shows. contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of great bands out there who don't make six figures or more a year, and that doesn't mean those bands aren't good.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tickets to live entertainment events (including sports, music, theater, and other events) have really gone up in the last 30-40 years, far more than the rate of inflation. It's what the market will bear (sort of like college tuition, although that's a more complex story) but that doesn't make it less sh-tty.

Is it really a "shitty" situation? Those that can afford it now can watch the show in comfort while sipping their favorite beverage rather than battling a crowd and having to watch the show pressed between people's sweaty armpits. It's expensive, but it's probably a more enjoyable experience for a lot of folks.

 

If someone wants to watch a show in comfort, they should do it from their living room.

 

The thing is that it's crucial to have crazy, sweaty, energetic people in the front. Those folks have a responsibility to everyone else in the room which is to exchange energy with the artist all night, ideally resulting in a better and more powerful performance for all. Nothing sucks more as a performer than to think the people they are supposed to entertain are bored, but what else can they assume when looking into a crowd everyone they can easily see are sitting in comfort and not really getting into whatever it is they're doing? That's when performances get phoned in and/or cut short. Why do you think some artists will not play to 100% seated rooms and require a standing pit, at the very least?

 

That's horseshit. Just because somebody pays a premium to be up front, doesn't mean they're going to sit on their ass during the show. They have zero responsibility to anybody at the show. I dunno when the last Rush show you attended had a bunch of 'rich boring people' up front doing nothing, but I never have even once witnessed that, and I've been to a lot of Rush gigs. It's GOOD that Rush doesn't do a GA pit. GA pits suck balls. There is no reason at all to assume going to a concert must mean you must be uncomfortable to have a good time.

 

LOL, some of you guys are a little regressive when it comes to concerts. You're not 16 anymore. Deal with it.

 

I agree with both points here, although with less passionate language. Of course Rush has the right to set market prices, but may have gone a little far with magnitude comments, possibly to drive up prices. In the NYC metro area, the 2 sellouts have been the quickest in 20 years. I have been lucky to get tix to each for less than full market value, but still very expensive. Its been a bummer to those without tix that they have not released more side and the almost rear stage seats like they used to in the easy sellout days of 1980 - 1997 here.

 

But, it was a huuuuuge bummer at the CA tour, sitting mid teens center, me and Chad Smith so much wanted the crowd to rock, I swear he was in the row ahead of me.

 

Whether it was the CA mega 80s setlist,or industry types with freebies leaving early, that was by far the quietest Rush crowd and most empty seats I recall in 20 years. And yes, my understanding is Chad recently bought a vaca home not far from here. I thought no way that was him until I read that, he is an LA guy after all.

 

Anyway, huge bummer with such a mellow crowd, although its their right to drive prices up so high the industry gets some freebies that would be thrown out if not used.

 

I don't think anyone's obligated to do shit at a show, yeah, but I also think every show is way better if there's energy coming from the crowd and the band.

 

I like arena shows but I prefer smaller, general admission shows. contrary to popular belief, there are a lot of great bands out there who don't make six figures or more a year, and that doesn't mean those bands aren't good.

Damn I loved small club/venue shows back in the day... :cheers:
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still some great small venue shows out there, but damn, standing still for three hours, rough on the hip, tragic.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an old tenet, bands who always insist on GA pits up front, obviously they just want a rowdy crowd to play to and play off.

 

Rush isn't one of those bands. Their crowds are adoring regardless of whether they're sitting, standing, jumping, cheering, or crying.

 

People who are continuing to whine about how it ain't fair that good seats command higher prices, and that it'd be better for everyone and the band if that wasn't the case, are simply people who can't afford said seats. And while that sucks for them, and I empathize, I have been one of those people many times for many concerts in 40 years, there are no justifications that are going to explain it away. The truth is...if someone can afford it, they'd pay it. :)

 

This is pretty much true of all things in life. In a free market system, complaining about prices of anything is silly. Would any person on this forum post a complaint that they can't afford to buy a 2015 Corvette Z06, which costs nearly $80K base? Would they argue it's not fair that every person who loves Corvettes can't afford to buy the latest version of their favorite car? Would they say, "No, but, really, I really, REALLY *LOVE* Corvettes, so this isn't fair"?

 

And, yes, the comparison holds because the Corvette was once relatively affordable. I will use the 1971 Stingray as an example. It's base price new was about $5,500. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $30K in today's dollars.

 

So, back in 1971, a prime model Corvette was affordable for most who really wanted it, but today it runs near $80K ($50K more in actual dollars than what it cost 4 decades ago) and is now only affordable for a small portion of the population, or for people who make some really bad financial decisions.

 

The reasons? Popularity. Market forces. Changes in the methodology for buying and selling vehicles. Customer willingness to pay the price.

 

Does that sound familiar? It should.

 

But just as there are still people buying Rush tickets at these prices, GM/Chevy is still selling Corvettes.

 

It doesn't matter if it is fair. Nothing is "fair" in a free market structure.

Edited by WorkingAllTheTime
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an old tenet, bands who always insist on GA pits up front, obviously they just want a rowdy crowd to play to and play off.

 

Rush isn't one of those bands. Their crowds are adoring regardless of whether they're sitting, standing, jumping, cheering, or crying.

 

People who are continuing to whine about how it ain't fair that good seats command higher prices, and that it'd be better for everyone and the band if that wasn't the case, are simply people who can't afford said seats. And while that sucks for them, and I empathize, I have been one of those people many times for many concerts in 40 years, there are no justifications that are going to explain it away. The truth is...if someone can afford it, they'd pay it. :)

 

This is pretty much true of all things in life. In a free market system, complaining about prices of anything is silly. Would any person on this forum post a complaint that they can't afford to buy a 2015 Corvette Z06, which costs nearly $80K base? Would they argue it's not fair that every person who loves Corvettes can't afford to buy the latest version of their favorite car? Would they say, "No, but, really, I really, REALLY *LOVE* Corvettes, so this isn't fair"?

 

And, yes, the comparison holds because the Corvette was once relatively affordable. I will use the 1971 Stingray as an example. It's base price new was about $5,500. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $30K in today's dollars.

 

So, back in 1971, a prime model Corvette was affordable for most who really wanted it, but today it runs near $80K ($50K more in actual dollars than what it cost 4 decades ago) and is now only affordable for a small portion of the population, or for people who make some really bad financial decisions.

 

The reasons? Popularity. Market forces. Changes in the methodology for buying and selling vehicles. Customer willingness to pay the price.

 

Does that sound familiar? It should.

 

But just as there are still people buying Rush tickets at these prices, GM/Chevy is still selling Corvettes.

 

It doesn't matter if it is fair. Nothing is "fair" in a free market structure.

 

I agree there is a right to a free market, but there are also different forces at play here. I agree Rush needed to wake up its fan base after lower ticket sales on CA. But to drive up demand by playing with emotions of this magnitude, that's much different than a luxury auto. They have every right to say whatever they want. They should have said something, if they have a true guess as to their future, but they didn't need to cloak it in mystery. What Danniels said at the Junos was fair, that they expect to not hit the secondary markets anymore, some detail like that could have been part of the original press release. If they don't know their future, then why say anything. To drive up prices? I don't agree with that, but I see it as plausible here.

 

But it's how this industry works that proves it's not free market. Manipulated demand and manipulated supply is not free market. Full disclosure, I luckily got good seats at a fair price.

 

A free market for rock concerts would entail EVERY seat be sold in the open, at a stated price. If that price is $5k for a front row seat, so be it. Rush deserves that. But no freebies for industry. Prices would move freely, well before show date based on actually buying. Not stay static in price like they do now. No premium seats in the trash cuz they couldn't get that $5k. No freebies to limit supply. That's all manipulating price, hence not free market. The way this industry manipulates supply and hides pricing and hides supply, it's a zillion miles from free market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn't know that there were fans who think Rush is coordinating some kind of conspiring under the table mechanisms to manipulate pricing. You can be sure Rush themselves aren't responsible. There is little doubt promoters and distributors manipulate the methods and timed releases and advertising to encourage the masses to buy this, that, and the other. This is nothing new in monopolies like TM or arenas like Madison Avenue. Nor are industry freebies a new thing. And most tickets not purchased at high cost don't stay static nor are tossed or disregarded, they're discounted at the very end of the sales period, as we all know. But NOT ALWAYS. Not because they're thrown away or comp' d away, but because people end up paying the high premiums either at the outset of ticket offerings, or near the tour date itself. People get nervous, people pull the trigger on the mortgage payment caliber seat. It happens ALL THE TIME. People don't just want to see Rush, they want to see Rush in style. Not every comment they've made is designed to rally tickets sales, they're just talking off the cuff. Well, except maybe Ray. But the facts are, we all know Neil and Alex are nearing the end of their desires to tour, and they're all bucking sixty. It's just how we've all aged, and how free markets continue to exist. It's really not rocket science.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an old tenet, bands who always insist on GA pits up front, obviously they just want a rowdy crowd to play to and play off.

 

Rush isn't one of those bands. Their crowds are adoring regardless of whether they're sitting, standing, jumping, cheering, or crying.

 

People who are continuing to whine about how it ain't fair that good seats command higher prices, and that it'd be better for everyone and the band if that wasn't the case, are simply people who can't afford said seats. And while that sucks for them, and I empathize, I have been one of those people many times for many concerts in 40 years, there are no justifications that are going to explain it away. The truth is...if someone can afford it, they'd pay it. :)

 

This is pretty much true of all things in life. In a free market system, complaining about prices of anything is silly. Would any person on this forum post a complaint that they can't afford to buy a 2015 Corvette Z06, which costs nearly $80K base? Would they argue it's not fair that every person who loves Corvettes can't afford to buy the latest version of their favorite car? Would they say, "No, but, really, I really, REALLY *LOVE* Corvettes, so this isn't fair"?

 

And, yes, the comparison holds because the Corvette was once relatively affordable. I will use the 1971 Stingray as an example. It's base price new was about $5,500. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $30K in today's dollars.

 

So, back in 1971, a prime model Corvette was affordable for most who really wanted it, but today it runs near $80K ($50K more in actual dollars than what it cost 4 decades ago) and is now only affordable for a small portion of the population, or for people who make some really bad financial decisions.

 

The reasons? Popularity. Market forces. Changes in the methodology for buying and selling vehicles. Customer willingness to pay the price.

 

Does that sound familiar? It should.

 

But just as there are still people buying Rush tickets at these prices, GM/Chevy is still selling Corvettes.

 

It doesn't matter if it is fair. Nothing is "fair" in a free market structure.

 

I would only quibble that fair doesn't mean one relinquishes the right to complain about the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn't know that there were fans who think Rush is coordinating some kind of conspiring under the table mechanisms to manipulate pricing. You can be sure Rush themselves aren't responsible. There is little doubt promoters and distributors manipulate the methods and timed releases and advertising to encourage the masses to buy this, that, and the other. This is nothing new in monopolies like TM or arenas like Madison Avenue. Nor are industry freebies a new thing. And most tickets not purchased at high cost don't stay static nor are tossed or disregarded, they're discounted at the very end of the sales period, as we all know. But NOT ALWAYS. Not because they're thrown away or comp' d away, but because people end up paying the high premiums either at the outset of ticket offerings, or near the tour date itself. People get nervous, people pull the trigger on the mortgage payment caliber seat. It happens ALL THE TIME. People don't just want to see Rush, they want to see Rush in style. Not every comment they've made is designed to rally tickets sales, they're just talking off the cuff. Well, except maybe Ray. But the facts are, we all know Neil and Alex are nearing the end of their desires to tour, and they're all bucking sixty. It's just how we've all aged, and how free markets continue to exist. It's really not rocket science.

No conspiracy, agreed. $150+ to sit in a cramped hockey arena seat is far from "in style" though. I'm not saying it's unfair, but I feel fully free to gripe while I pay these high rates. :) Edited by lerxt1990
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn't know that there were fans who think Rush is coordinating some kind of conspiring under the table mechanisms to manipulate pricing. You can be sure Rush themselves aren't responsible. There is little doubt promoters and distributors manipulate the methods and timed releases and advertising to encourage the masses to buy this, that, and the other. This is nothing new in monopolies like TM or arenas like Madison Avenue. Nor are industry freebies a new thing. And most tickets not purchased at high cost don't stay static nor are tossed or disregarded, they're discounted at the very end of the sales period, as we all know. But NOT ALWAYS. Not because they're thrown away or comp' d away, but because people end up paying the high premiums either at the outset of ticket offerings, or near the tour date itself. People get nervous, people pull the trigger on the mortgage payment caliber seat. It happens ALL THE TIME. People don't just want to see Rush, they want to see Rush in style. Not every comment they've made is designed to rally tickets sales, they're just talking off the cuff. Well, except maybe Ray. But the facts are, we all know Neil and Alex are nearing the end of their desires to tour, and they're all bucking sixty. It's just how we've all aged, and how free markets continue to exist. It's really not rocket science.

 

My only intent was to present the other side about free market economics in the concert industry. Rush deserves a premium price, my belief is that a true free market would look much different.

 

What bands like Rush do is give full power to the promoters, for a large up front fee. Promoters play the scalping game and supply/demand games. There are artists that don't do it this way, don't let the promoters have all the power, Pearl Jam being the best example, bucking the system since they were newbies. Bruce also takes steps to create more of a fair market.

 

A specific example on this tour is the lack of side/ rear diagonal seats, thousands of them, have not been released in the NYC area, which is the exact opposite of what Rush did in their concert selling heyday. We can see the line today of what is not available to the market today and easily recall how far back fans used to sit in their heyday. These seats may likely be released, but holding them back now is manufacturing price and limiting supply, which has an irreversible effect on those that have already bought secondary tickets.

 

Their quickest sell outs in 20 years (which is very exciting). But the specific supply limitation here is obvious. There are more factors at work here as we'll. Yes this work has the invisible hand of the promoters, but the band's name appears on the ticket/no tickets currently available from the venue page.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone with actual insider information on how the money changes hands is needed here. I mean, how do the 3 guys in the band make money? Is it a portion of every ticket sale or do they just get a lump sum per venue and the others (venue, ticket industry, etc.) get to keep what ever they sell after guaranteeing a definitive cost to the band's people?

 

Ok - so let's use 10000 seat arena. Does Rush collect a a flat fee, say $700000, or do they take a percentage of the gross sales, say 70%? It matters because if it's a flat fee, then Rush really doesn't care what the average ticket goes for. They got theirs. However, if it's a percentage, then they have a vested interest in what the average ticket sale goes for.

 

As I see in my limited scope of this market, the problem isn't the ticket sale, it's the secondary market. I get that it's a free market and the ticket price is what a willing buyer and seller are willing to agree upon. However, if the seller is cornering the market, then the market isn't free. With that said though, one could argue that with dozens if secondary markets out (Stubhub, Eseats, Ebay, etc) that competition exists so the market is free.

 

Ugh. Headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lump sum in advance from my understanding speaking with industry insiders over the years. I recall being close to my college concert group, that brought one serious act a year to campus. They had lists. Rush was on it for a little over $100k back in the day. Some buck the system to create a more favorable market for fans, like pearl jam

 

 

the discussion was not whether Rush cares, but it was just assumed here the concert market operates freely.

 

Above I have a few posts providing many examples that it is not a free market.

Edited by Gabrielgil513
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an old tenet, bands who always insist on GA pits up front, obviously they just want a rowdy crowd to play to and play off.

 

Rush isn't one of those bands. Their crowds are adoring regardless of whether they're sitting, standing, jumping, cheering, or crying.

 

People who are continuing to whine about how it ain't fair that good seats command higher prices, and that it'd be better for everyone and the band if that wasn't the case, are simply people who can't afford said seats. And while that sucks for them, and I empathize, I have been one of those people many times for many concerts in 40 years, there are no justifications that are going to explain it away. The truth is...if someone can afford it, they'd pay it. :)

 

This is pretty much true of all things in life. In a free market system, complaining about prices of anything is silly. Would any person on this forum post a complaint that they can't afford to buy a 2015 Corvette Z06, which costs nearly $80K base? Would they argue it's not fair that every person who loves Corvettes can't afford to buy the latest version of their favorite car? Would they say, "No, but, really, I really, REALLY *LOVE* Corvettes, so this isn't fair"?

 

And, yes, the comparison holds because the Corvette was once relatively affordable. I will use the 1971 Stingray as an example. It's base price new was about $5,500. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $30K in today's dollars.

 

So, back in 1971, a prime model Corvette was affordable for most who really wanted it, but today it runs near $80K ($50K more in actual dollars than what it cost 4 decades ago) and is now only affordable for a small portion of the population, or for people who make some really bad financial decisions.

 

The reasons? Popularity. Market forces. Changes in the methodology for buying and selling vehicles. Customer willingness to pay the price.

 

Does that sound familiar? It should.

 

But just as there are still people buying Rush tickets at these prices, GM/Chevy is still selling Corvettes.

 

It doesn't matter if it is fair. Nothing is "fair" in a free market structure.

 

I agree there is a right to a free market, but there are also different forces at play here. I agree Rush needed to wake up its fan base after lower ticket sales on CA. But to drive up demand by playing with emotions of this magnitude, that's much different than a luxury auto. They have every right to say whatever they want. They should have said something, if they have a true guess as to their future, but they didn't need to cloak it in mystery. What Danniels said at the Junos was fair, that they expect to not hit the secondary markets anymore, some detail like that could have been part of the original press release. If they don't know their future, then why say anything. To drive up prices? I don't agree with that, but I see it as plausible here.

 

But it's how this industry works that proves it's not free market. Manipulated demand and manipulated supply is not free market. Full disclosure, I luckily got good seats at a fair price.

 

A free market for rock concerts would entail EVERY seat be sold in the open, at a stated price. If that price is $5k for a front row seat, so be it. Rush deserves that. But no freebies for industry. Prices would move freely, well before show date based on actually buying. Not stay static in price like they do now. No premium seats in the trash cuz they couldn't get that $5k. No freebies to limit supply. That's all manipulating price, hence not free market. The way this industry manipulates supply and hides pricing and hides supply, it's a zillion miles from free market.

 

I disagree that telling the fan base this is the last tour of this magnitude is toying with emotions. Actually, it's just being honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an old tenet, bands who always insist on GA pits up front, obviously they just want a rowdy crowd to play to and play off.

 

Rush isn't one of those bands. Their crowds are adoring regardless of whether they're sitting, standing, jumping, cheering, or crying.

 

People who are continuing to whine about how it ain't fair that good seats command higher prices, and that it'd be better for everyone and the band if that wasn't the case, are simply people who can't afford said seats. And while that sucks for them, and I empathize, I have been one of those people many times for many concerts in 40 years, there are no justifications that are going to explain it away. The truth is...if someone can afford it, they'd pay it. :)

 

This is pretty much true of all things in life. In a free market system, complaining about prices of anything is silly. Would any person on this forum post a complaint that they can't afford to buy a 2015 Corvette Z06, which costs nearly $80K base? Would they argue it's not fair that every person who loves Corvettes can't afford to buy the latest version of their favorite car? Would they say, "No, but, really, I really, REALLY *LOVE* Corvettes, so this isn't fair"?

 

And, yes, the comparison holds because the Corvette was once relatively affordable. I will use the 1971 Stingray as an example. It's base price new was about $5,500. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $30K in today's dollars.

 

So, back in 1971, a prime model Corvette was affordable for most who really wanted it, but today it runs near $80K ($50K more in actual dollars than what it cost 4 decades ago) and is now only affordable for a small portion of the population, or for people who make some really bad financial decisions.

 

The reasons? Popularity. Market forces. Changes in the methodology for buying and selling vehicles. Customer willingness to pay the price.

 

Does that sound familiar? It should.

 

But just as there are still people buying Rush tickets at these prices, GM/Chevy is still selling Corvettes.

 

It doesn't matter if it is fair. Nothing is "fair" in a free market structure.

 

I would only quibble that fair doesn't mean one relinquishes the right to complain about the cost.

 

True enough. Free speech is that. But it also has consequences.... like me pointing out the silliness of said speech. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote- I disagree that telling the fan base this is the last tour of this magnitude is toying with emotions. Actually, it's just being honest.

-----

 

Except they didn't tell us what that exactly means. Part of honesty is clarity. I would not say there is dishonesty here, but I'd stop short of calling it honest. Their vagueness has led to an explosion in ticket sales and unit cost and has manipulated the "free" market, in concert with many other factors. Good for them, I'm a fan.

Edited by Gabrielgil513
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn't know that there were fans who think Rush is coordinating some kind of conspiring under the table mechanisms to manipulate pricing. You can be sure Rush themselves aren't responsible. There is little doubt promoters and distributors manipulate the methods and timed releases and advertising to encourage the masses to buy this, that, and the other. This is nothing new in monopolies like TM or arenas like Madison Avenue. Nor are industry freebies a new thing. And most tickets not purchased at high cost don't stay static nor are tossed or disregarded, they're discounted at the very end of the sales period, as we all know. But NOT ALWAYS. Not because they're thrown away or comp' d away, but because people end up paying the high premiums either at the outset of ticket offerings, or near the tour date itself. People get nervous, people pull the trigger on the mortgage payment caliber seat. It happens ALL THE TIME. People don't just want to see Rush, they want to see Rush in style. Not every comment they've made is designed to rally tickets sales, they're just talking off the cuff. Well, except maybe Ray. But the facts are, we all know Neil and Alex are nearing the end of their desires to tour, and they're all bucking sixty. It's just how we've all aged, and how free markets continue to exist. It's really not rocket science.

No conspiracy, agreed. $150+ to sit in a cramped hockey arena seat is far from "in style" though. I'm not saying it's unfair, but I feel fully free to gripe while I pay these high rates. :)

 

LOL, well, sure. I suppose I meant 'in style' in VIP fashion. Corporate boxes, waitresses, barbed wire fences separating the elite from the unwashed masses, handjobs from Neil, that sorta stuff. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn't know that there were fans who think Rush is coordinating some kind of conspiring under the table mechanisms to manipulate pricing. You can be sure Rush themselves aren't responsible. There is little doubt promoters and distributors manipulate the methods and timed releases and advertising to encourage the masses to buy this, that, and the other. This is nothing new in monopolies like TM or arenas like Madison Avenue. Nor are industry freebies a new thing. And most tickets not purchased at high cost don't stay static nor are tossed or disregarded, they're discounted at the very end of the sales period, as we all know. But NOT ALWAYS. Not because they're thrown away or comp' d away, but because people end up paying the high premiums either at the outset of ticket offerings, or near the tour date itself. People get nervous, people pull the trigger on the mortgage payment caliber seat. It happens ALL THE TIME. People don't just want to see Rush, they want to see Rush in style. Not every comment they've made is designed to rally tickets sales, they're just talking off the cuff. Well, except maybe Ray. But the facts are, we all know Neil and Alex are nearing the end of their desires to tour, and they're all bucking sixty. It's just how we've all aged, and how free markets continue to exist. It's really not rocket science.

 

My only intent was to present the other side about free market economics in the concert industry. Rush deserves a premium price, my belief is that a true free market would look much different.

 

What bands like Rush do is give full power to the promoters, for a large up front fee. Promoters play the scalping game and supply/demand games. There are artists that don't do it this way, don't let the promoters have all the power, Pearl Jam being the best example, bucking the system since they were newbies. Bruce also takes steps to create more of a fair market.

 

A specific example on this tour is the lack of side/ rear diagonal seats, thousands of them, have not been released in the NYC area, which is the exact opposite of what Rush did in their concert selling heyday. We can see the line today of what is not available to the market today and easily recall how far back fans used to sit in their heyday. These seats may likely be released, but holding them back now is manufacturing price and limiting supply, which has an irreversible effect on those that have already bought secondary tickets.

 

Their quickest sell outs in 20 years (which is very exciting). But the specific supply limitation here is obvious. There are more factors at work here as we'll. Yes this work has the invisible hand of the promoters, but the band's name appears on the ticket/no tickets currently available from the venue page.

 

Everyone always quotes Bruce or Pearl Jam in citing this practice. It's a solid practice. But most artists, it's outta their hands, and they just run with it, they make money, they know the game, they lament it, but in the end, they're doing the best they can. I'm not sure expecting Rush to control every aspect of tens of thousands of tickets is a reasonable expectation. Not in today's music biz, and not in today's markets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except they didn't tell us what that exactly means. Part of honesty is clarity. I would not say there is dishonesty here, but I'd stop short of calling it honest. Their vagueness has led to an explosion in ticket sales and unit cost and has manipulated the "free" market, in concert with many other factors. Good for them, I'm a fan.

 

I really don't think the vagueness has led to a ticket sales explosion. Hardcore rush fans always think there's so many of us. There really, really isn't. There's far more classic rock fans than there are Rush fans. Few of them have been affected by, or even noticed, the practices of Rush in the ticketing market. They're either willing to pay, or they're not. Same way they purchase AC/DC tickets or Van Halen tickets or anyone else they came of age to.

Edited by Van Squalen
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I didn't know that there were fans who think Rush is coordinating some kind of conspiring under the table mechanisms to manipulate pricing. You can be sure Rush themselves aren't responsible. There is little doubt promoters and distributors manipulate the methods and timed releases and advertising to encourage the masses to buy this, that, and the other. This is nothing new in monopolies like TM or arenas like Madison Avenue. Nor are industry freebies a new thing. And most tickets not purchased at high cost don't stay static nor are tossed or disregarded, they're discounted at the very end of the sales period, as we all know. But NOT ALWAYS. Not because they're thrown away or comp' d away, but because people end up paying the high premiums either at the outset of ticket offerings, or near the tour date itself. People get nervous, people pull the trigger on the mortgage payment caliber seat. It happens ALL THE TIME. People don't just want to see Rush, they want to see Rush in style. Not every comment they've made is designed to rally tickets sales, they're just talking off the cuff. Well, except maybe Ray. But the facts are, we all know Neil and Alex are nearing the end of their desires to tour, and they're all bucking sixty. It's just how we've all aged, and how free markets continue to exist. It's really not rocket science.

 

My only intent was to present the other side about free market economics in the concert industry. Rush deserves a premium price, my belief is that a true free market would look much different.

 

What bands like Rush do is give full power to the promoters, for a large up front fee. Promoters play the scalping game and supply/demand games. There are artists that don't do it this way, don't let the promoters have all the power, Pearl Jam being the best example, bucking the system since they were newbies. Bruce also takes steps to create more of a fair market.

 

A specific example on this tour is the lack of side/ rear diagonal seats, thousands of them, have not been released in the NYC area, which is the exact opposite of what Rush did in their concert selling heyday. We can see the line today of what is not available to the market today and easily recall how far back fans used to sit in their heyday. These seats may likely be released, but holding them back now is manufacturing price and limiting supply, which has an irreversible effect on those that have already bought secondary tickets.

 

Their quickest sell outs in 20 years (which is very exciting). But the specific supply limitation here is obvious. There are more factors at work here as we'll. Yes this work has the invisible hand of the promoters, but the band's name appears on the ticket/no tickets currently available from the venue page.

 

Everyone always quotes Bruce or Pearl Jam in citing this practice. It's a solid practice. But most artists, it's outta their hands, and they just run with it, they make money, they know the game, they lament it, but in the end, they're doing the best they can. I'm not sure expecting Rush to control every aspect of tens of thousands of tickets is a reasonable expectation. Not in today's music biz, and not in today's markets.

 

Best they Can, excellent! I didn't intend to blame Rush regarding holding back the rear seats they used to sell back in the easy sellout days. That's the work of the promoter, protecting their investment and keeping prices high. I'm just citing influences on market forces at work here, demonstrating it's not free market economics. Citing Pearl Jam is an example of bands that chose a different path to operate the market differently. They still have high prices and limited supply, but they work hard trying to make it fair to their loyal fans. I'm not sure payin $40 every year to be a member is a great deal for the chance at far away seats, but they are making an effort.

 

 

Regarding ticket explosion, the two sell outs in the NYC area have been the quickest in 20 years. TM was a solid sellout at MSG, but that took a lot of time and promo. But many non sell outs. CA did not sell well. this year there was an obvious difference. many of the venues are sold out. Fast. As a comparison, check out the CA last tour stats. CA was a far cry from what we are seeing on R40, which is terrific. Magnitude has made a difference, I am happy about it, I want the joint rockin, just citing that as a market influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...